Wladimir & Vitali Klitschko: Are They All-Time Greats

[Onetimeonly]

Well, if you think Johnson was prime showing up for his last significant fight in the kind of condition that could get him harpooned if he laid on a raft in the ocean, then your defense mechanism for the bums that vitali beat can't be penetrated and I'm wasting my time. As for spoon/Holmes, if that's your analysis I question that you've seen it.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think he is saying that Kevin Johnson was prime back when he fought Vitali in 2009 and at the time rated in the top 10.

[Onetimeonly]

No, Kirk Johnson was a fighter too. Not a very good one, but much better than Kevin. If he was top 10 that's brutal even in the weakest heavyweight era ever.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah I think Kirk Johnson was pretty out of shape and probably unranked by that point.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as Kevin Johnson goes I would pick him to beat some top 10 contenders from earlier eras like Don Cockell and Tony Galento. I just think those guys were even less capable than Johnson.

[Onetimeonly]

No way Johnson beats Valenti laying on the ropes and throwing 14 jabs a round.

[Ambling Alp II]

I never said that was needed. Vitali doesn't have any present time good fighters defeated. I'd confidently take Witherspoon to beat him.

Sanders was good. The likes of Peter, Adamek, Chisora, Donald, Kirk Johnson, Briggs were decent anyway, they were considered to be top competitors of that time.

And I won't be so sure about Witherspoon. Yes, he was very good, he would have made that look competetive, but he would have failed to overcome Vitali's jab. As against Holmes, Larry won that fight, all the controversy is blown up.

That is getting pretty desperate. 0-2 in fights that mattered.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think of Vitali's wins Corrie Sanders, Samuel Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez, Chris Arreola, Kevin Johnson, and Tomasz Adamek were ranked in the top 10. So a total of six.

[Onetimeonly]

6 x 0 = 0

[DrDuke]

I never said that was needed. Vitali doesn't have any present time good fighters defeated. I'd confidently take Witherspoon to beat him.

Sanders was good. The likes of Peter, Adamek, Chisora, Donald, Kirk Johnson, Briggs were decent anyway, they were considered to be top competitors of that time.

And I won't be so sure about Witherspoon. Yes, he was very good, he would have made that look competetive, but he would have failed to overcome Vitali's jab. As against Holmes, Larry won that fight, all the controversy is blown up.

That is getting pretty desperate. 0-2 in fights that mattered.

Probably you should try to watch those two.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah, the Byrd fight was a classic. Can't wait to see that one again.
Oh, that's right. Vitaly was ahead on the scorecards, so they really aren't losses for him. Just like we do with everyone else who loses when they are ahead on the scores.

[Ambling Alp II]

6 x 0 = 0

Amen!

[DrDuke]

Yeah, the Byrd fight was a classic. Can't wait to see that one again.
Oh, that's right. Vitaly was ahead on the scorecards, so they really aren't losses for him. Just like we do with everyone else who loses when they are ahead on the scores.

That's not even about the fact of being ahead on the scorecards. Scorecards are sometimes not a reflection of actual events. It's about the performance itself.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree scorecards might not be accurate. Nor did they necessarily how good the performance was.

He looked horrible against Byrd in a terrible fight and quit.
He got stopped in six rounds by a past it Lewis. If he had any defense his face would not have looked like that and he wouldn't have been stopped.. If he had good power he would have taken that version of Lewis out.

So 0-2 in fights that really mattered.

[DrDuke]

I agree scorecards might not be accurate. Nor did they necessarily how good the performance was.

He looked horrible against Byrd in a terrible fight and quit.
He got stopped in six rounds by a past it Lewis. If he had any defense his face would not have looked like that and he wouldn't have been stopped.. If he had good power he would have taken that version of Lewis out.

So 0-2 in fights that really mattered.

Yeah, he looked that horrible against Byrd, that he won almost every round. What a poor performance.

And I actually believe, that Lewis would have taken over or outclassed Klitschko, if he would have been more ready and fresh, but there was nothing after round 6, there was no rematch, now only assumptions are possible. Yet we have some facts: a close fight with both scoring good stuff, but Vitali outworking Lewis for the majority of the time fought.

And pointing to the one punch taken, which had caused a cut, as a proof of a fighter having no defence is pretty amusing. Let's point to every taken shot by any fighter and say, that those fighters' defence sucked.

[Boxing Writer]

I never said that was needed. Vitali doesn't have any present time good fighters defeated. I'd confidently take Witherspoon to beat him.

Sanders was good. The likes of Peter, Adamek, Chisora, Donald, Kirk Johnson, Briggs were decent anyway, they were considered to be top competitors of that time.

And I won't be so sure about Witherspoon. Yes, he was very good, he would have made that look competetive, but he would have failed to overcome Vitali's jab. As against Holmes, Larry won that fight, all the controversy is blown up.

Sanders was good, very talented indeed. But people tend to forget that Sanders that fought Vitali was older than Lewis, less active and more out of shape. And still gave Vitali a hell for the first 3 rounds. Peter and Johnson were decent, but they turned in awful shape for Vitali fights (not his fault though). Briggs wasn't fat, but he put that incredible amount of muscles, that needed tons of oxygen. Adamek was to small, Donald was feather-fisted and never elite, Chisora was fringe contender. Vitali's resume wasn't awful for a title-holder, but for a HOFer it was really bad.

[Onetimeonly]

I'd pick vitali over a lot of more accomplished fighters. That's just too flawed of a way to rate guys. We're all wrong all the time. His resume is one to compare with a Ruiz.

[DrDuke]

I never said that was needed. Vitali doesn't have any present time good fighters defeated. I'd confidently take Witherspoon to beat him.

Sanders was good. The likes of Peter, Adamek, Chisora, Donald, Kirk Johnson, Briggs were decent anyway, they were considered to be top competitors of that time.

And I won't be so sure about Witherspoon. Yes, he was very good, he would have made that look competetive, but he would have failed to overcome Vitali's jab. As against Holmes, Larry won that fight, all the controversy is blown up.

Sanders was good, very talented indeed. But people tend to forget that Sanders that fought Vitali was older than Lewis, less active and more out of shape. And still gave Vitali a hell for the first 3 rounds. Peter and Johnson were decent, but they turned in awful shape for Vitali fights (not his fault though). Briggs wasn't fat, but he put that incredible amount of muscles, that needed tons of oxygen. Adamek was to small, Donald was feather-fisted and never elite, Chisora was fringe contender. Vitali's resume wasn't awful for a title-holder, but for a HOFer it was really bad.

The things is, you can make such an exposing for absolutely anybody.

[Onetimeonly]

You can, but in this case it's without bias and accurate.

[Quantrax]

Vitali quit like a dog while miles ahead on points against a guy who couldn't punch hard enough to hurt him.

I don't know why some people are portraying this fight as a positive for him.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree scorecards might not be accurate. Nor did they necessarily how good the performance was.

He looked horrible against Byrd in a terrible fight and quit.
He got stopped in six rounds by a past it Lewis. If he had any defense his face would not have looked like that and he wouldn't have been stopped.. If he had good power he would have taken that version of Lewis out.

So 0-2 in fights that really mattered.

Yeah, he looked that horrible against Byrd, that he won almost every round. What a poor performance.

And I actually believe, that Lewis would have taken over or outclassed Klitschko, if he would have been more ready and fresh, but there was nothing after round 6, there was no rematch, now only assumptions are possible. Yet we have some facts: a close fight with both scoring good stuff, but Vitali outworking Lewis for the majority of the time fought.

And pointing to the one punch taken, which had caused a cut, as a proof of a fighter having no defence is pretty amusing. Let's point to every taken shot by any fighter and say, that those fighters' defence sucked.

Happy to amuse you. Ever notice that good defensive fighters seldom get cut a lot less than bad defensive fighters?
And his whole face looked like it went through a meat grinder. Was not just one little cut.
The Byrd fight was a terrible fight. (The scorecards were ridiculous btw.) Most importantly he quit. It's a loss by TKO.
So yes a poor performance.
Lewis was clearly not at his best. He was ripe for the taking. Klitschko still got stopped in 6 rounds. So yes, a poor performance.

A great fighter wins both of the fights easily. A very good fighter wins these as well. Klitschko could not even finish them.

[DrDuke]

Happy to amuse you. Ever notice that good defensive fighters seldom get cut a lot less than bad defensive fighters?
And his whole face looked like it went through a meat grinder. Was not just one little cut.

Like a comment of some girl, who've seen a boxing match for the 2nd time and a cut in it for the 1st one. It was a cut above the eye, which produced the bleeding, that was obstructing the vision. Suddenly his face was in blood, oh my, how could it happen?

The Byrd fight was a terrible fight. (The scorecards were ridiculous btw.) Most importantly he quit. It's a loss by TKO.
So yes a poor performance.
Lewis was clearly not at his best. He was ripe for the taking. Klitschko still got stopped in 6 rounds. So yes, a poor performance.

Judging the performance by the outcome is just dumb. If you drop a bowl of soup, that won't mean, that the soup tasted bad before being shed on the floor.

[Ambling Alp II]

Nice.
And I love the soup analogy. Lets pretend the fight didn't suck. And thinking the outcome is important is just crazy talk. I mean why would who wins and who loses matter ?

[gregor]

Wlad makes it due to longevity and number of fights. The era was fairly weak for HW, and his style was generally painful to watch, but anyway he fought the best (of what was available) over so many years he makes it easily IMO.

Vitali - no way. ATG is about achievements, and this pretty much ends the discussion. He could be the stronger brother, could be difficult opponent in hypotetical matches against Ali, Frazier, etc. - none of it matters. In reality his best opponents are Lewis and Byrd...

[DrDuke]

Nice.
And I love the soup analogy. Lets pretend the fight didn't suck. And thinking the outcome is important is just crazy talk. I mean why would who wins and who loses matter ?

And I didn't say, that outcomes didn't matter. I said, outcomes described performances with variable accuracy.